WLD is getting the right idea. Yes, I was "baptised", many years ago, first as one of the "Friends & Workers (a.k.a. the Two-by-Twos) at age 18, then as one of "Jehovah's Witnesses" at age 25. I had very little time in service or in social settings with other JWs. I did most of my service on my own. Quite a few years ago, I was told that the local congregation would not sponsor me anymore as a publisher. After a number of years, I asked for some spiritual help, with quickly switched to a JC, and at the conclusion I suggested, half in jest, that based on how the JC was thinking, that it would have been simpler to have just not accepted that I qualified for baptism so soon, due to a lack of understanding regarding social morality. I do not recall being told that there would be 2 questions, what they were, or what the words signified. I think I know now what the meaning of the 2 questions is. I have no problem with the 2nd question, having been in constant attendance throughout the piece. But, when I discuss certain topics head on, my private conduct goes awry, so I still have a problem with answering the 1st question in the affirmative. If we and they could work simply on the basis of Philippians 3:13 "forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things ahead", I'm fine then.
JW Defenders- Is WTS Right to Insist You Stay Away From these Websites?
by OnTheWayOut 307 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Spike Tassel
uncovering page 9
-
nelly136
i used to get the pip with the way vulnerables were collected and paraded as the latest 'study' then dropped like hot potato as soon as they did something that was deemed incorrect, seriously what else did the dubbies expect.
as spike hasnt elaborated on exactly what condition and doesnt seem to lack intelligence, i can only hazzard a guess on it being a condition where the wiring is different, and when i say different i dont mean in a nasty way.
if it was for example something in the autistic spectrum,(i'm saying as an example) i cant see the dubbies turning down the chance of a baptism, but then i cant see them making an allowance for a behaviour that is a result of that condition that would then get the person marked.
the person asking the questions is supposed to make sure that the person has a proper understanding before passing them for baptism, theyre not likely to admit they were wrong to approve, so i dont see it totally out of the realm of possibility that they'd baptise someone who didnt fully understand the consequence and then boot em out after wards because of a pre existing condition. to annul the baptism would mean admitting they were wrong to allow it in the first place.
these are the people who are happy to baptise young children after all, and like wuz says they were happy to baptise her sister who has downs, so are they really gonna hold back on baptising someone who doesnt fully understand? and wouldnt it be easier to mark the one not understanding than to admit they were wrong to baptise them in the first place.
i can remember one family that were paraded like mascots who once deemed unfit got the ''if they turn up dont talk to them or encourage them, they'll get bored and go away''
-
Hope4Others
Ok What are the first 5 baptismal questions....
30 ott years ago who remembers.....
-
isaacaustin
Spike...you said:
WLD is getting the right idea. Yes, I was "baptised", many years ago, first as one of the "Friends & Workers (a.k.a. the Two-by-Twos) at age 18, then as one of "Jehovah's Witnesses" at age 25. I had very little time in service or in social settings with other JWs. I did most of my service on my own. Quite a few years ago, I was told that the local congregation would not sponsor me anymore as a publisher.
My reply: Your last sentence reveals you as a liar. Publishers are not sponsored. All baptized members are publishers...becoming a publisher is a prereq to getting baptized...being baptized does not necessarily immediately follow. The cong would not state they can no longer sponsor a member...they simply remove you and announce 'so and so is no longer..."...NOT 'so and so is not...' You are a liar and perhaps mentally unstable. You are downright ridiculous and everyone here I am sure recognizes your whole story is BS. Care to come clean now?
After a number of years, I asked for some spiritual help, with quickly switched to a JC, and at the conclusion I suggested, half in jest, that based on how the JC was thinking, that it would have been simpler to have just not accepted that I qualified for baptism so soon, due to a lack of understanding regarding social morality. I do not recall being told that there would be 2 questions, what they were, or what the words signified. I think I know now what the meaning of the 2 questions is. I have no problem with the 2nd question, having been in constant attendance throughout the piece. But, when I discuss certain topics head on, my private conduct goes awry, so I still have a problem with answering the 1st question in the affirmative. If we and they could work simply on the basis of Philippians 3:13 "forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things ahead", I'm fine then.
My reply: Your relaying of the process you went thru uses wrong temrinology as well as being irrelevant to your imaginery situation. Grow up! Get mental help- you need it.
-
nelly136
so not wiring as such just your thinking doesnt match the jw approved guidelines?
-
isaacaustin
Spike, even if your story was true...and I highly doubt any of it is...your coming to boards like this (if you revelaed this to the elders) would prevent you from ever being reinstated....rather you would be branded an apostate.
-
Hope4Others
So my understanding of all this is they think you are unstable and you were announced that you no longer were
reconized as a baptised publisher, although they decided not to df you...is that about the size of it
-
WuzLovesDubs
I am also pretty sure that the Organized book that has the questions for baptism in it...I believe thats the one...goes IN DEPTH into moral matters including whether you smoke or do drugs or have or are committing acts of immorality or you masturbate or if you have AIDS....Im quite sure if you couldnt get past those initials questions that the elders would NOT recommend you for baptism. I remember being in a car waiting for someone who was at a door and the elder in the front seat started asking me some basic questions to even see if I was ready to answer the BIG questions from the book! It was nuts how much I was questioned. I thought at the time that was a positive thing because it MUST surely mean that "jehovah was keeping his organization clean" right??
And THEN after I was approved to be baptized I was scheduled to be at a CA. Amongst the people I was scheduled to be baptized with, one brother, on the night BEFORE we were to be baptized was told he did NOT qualify to be baptized yet because the brothers deemed he had not put in enough field service time to qualify and he was yanked! And he was PISSED OFF like you wouldnt believe because he had invited his whole family into town to be there. I thought that totally sucked to do that to him.
The qualifying doesnt come at the point between the baptizmal TALK and the DUNKING when the candidates are being asked those TWO questions. And to my knowledge nobody is standing there seeing who answers YES and who answers NO to those questions...they are asked to the GROUP of candidates. So none of what SPike says makes sense to ME anyway. I am, though, thinking somehow it makes sense to HIM.
Ive also known a lot of JWS who were baptized and involved in incredibly scandalous behaviour whose baptisms were not nullified. Thats a binding contract to the JWs...from which there is only one out once you are dunked... DFing or DAing.
-
isaacaustin
spike:
The following words of your put the icing on the cake that you made up this fairytale:
I did most of my service on my own. Quite a few years ago, I was told that the local congregation would not sponsor me anymore as a publisher.